(Freedom FAQ - how to recognize Jews, what they do and why they do it)

The Jewish Mentality Book I

Copyright ©1996 by Michael A. Hoffman II. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.hoffman-info.com/

_____________

Partial list of Contents: Churchill: Politically Correct Exterminator;
Hitler: The Dupe of "Jewjitsu;" Just Law Enforcement, Not Persecution;
Deep into the Psychology of Opposition; Tall Tales; Jailers,
Inquisitors and Thought Controllers; Lying as an Institution.
Turning the Tables: A Revaluation

_____________

All learning is based upon curiosity and curiosity is the unfettered
exploration of that which is interesting. The weird halo of immunity
which surrounds the Jewish nation is a highly interesting sanction and
no scholar must be faulted for defying it. To pretend that we must
approach the Jewish studies with some special reverence and reserve,
fearful of causing offense, is a totalitarian expectation.

It will undoubtedly be the first reaction of a mind-zapped populace to
immediately regard the investigation of the negative factors within
the religion of Judaism as a horrible one, "bound to lead to another
'Holocaust."

That the fanatical chauvinism of Jewish partisanship has been absorbed
into the body politic of the masses of non-Jews to such an
overwhelming extent is a high tribute to the power and effectiveness
of Jewish propaganda.

But this writing is not an attack but a defense. Khazars attack
Christianity every week in a newspaper column, magazine article, radio
report, film, television show or book. Few people regard such attacks
as a prelude to the further decay and eventual destruction of the
Gentile people of the West. Such Jewish attacks on Christianity are
regarded as the "normal criticism" any creed must endure at the hands
of truth-seekers, scientists and dispassionate scholars.

Within this framework is the presumption of immunity for Judaism.
According to the mindset promoted by the System's public schools and
private universities and the Established "media" organs of mass
communication, Judaism alone among the religions of the world is
immune from scholarly criticism. First because it is perfect, being
the creed of God's Master or "Chosen" Race and second because, even if
it were as flawed to the degree that secular agnosticism asserts that
every religion is flawed, it would still be wrong to expose it as such
because to do so will lead to another "Holocaust."

If one looks beneath the sham appearances of this late 20th century,
that is to say beyond the shuttered provincialism of Jew-worship, one
glimpses the outlines of war. A relentless libel is directed at the
Christian West, or what remains of it in the ruins, in the aftermath
of a half-century of constant propaganda against it. It must be
relentless to insure that no smoldering spark shall leap up to
illuminate the perpetual dark night of the modern era.

The story of the crucifixion of an honest man at the behest of the
Jewish religious and political leadership, whose heroic committment to
the truth above all else, testified to his divine patrimony, has been
for 2,000 years a permanent stumbling block to the ascendance of
Jewish world supremacy. Therefore every attack upon the historical
reality of this story and the person and morality of Jesus has been
launched by the Khazars.

Where that has proved insufficient, the new state religion of
"Holocaust" Newspeak (absent from dictionaries before 1978) has been
established by all Western governments and by all hireling priests and
preachers. By this means Auschwitz is made to replace Calvary as the
axis mundi of Western history. Though the tale of the destruction of
the Khazars during World War Two has been wildly and shamelessly
exaggerated out of all proportion to what actually occurred in that
time, there is no doubt that Jewish people were murdered in the
hundreds of thousands and that this was a horrible crime.

But what is never factored into the equation as the indictment of the
West is prepared on this basis, is the fact that Hitler and his
National Socialist German Worker's Party rose to a fury of indignation
against Jewish people directly as a result of what Jewish communists
like Trotsky (actual name: Leon Bronstein) and Lenin and the
thoroughly-Jewish Bolshevik communist party in Moscow had done to the
Christian peasantry of Mother Russia, which the Germans regarded as
every inch a "holocaust." (The Jewish extraction of Lenin's mother has
long been known to many Russian historians and party bureaucrats with
access to inside information. Cf. "Who was a Jew? Why, Lenin of
Course!", Jerusalem Post International Edition, Jan. 26, 1991, and
Dimitry Volkogonov, Lenin: A New Biography).

Both the Jewish historian Arno Mayer in his book Why Did the Heavens
Not Darken? and the German professor of history Ernst Nolte have noted
the essential link between what the Jewish communists did to
Christians in Russia as the basis for retribution against Jewish
people in German-occupied territories.

As Prof. Nolte points out, the Jewish communists in Russia founded
their ideology on the demand for extermination on a huge scale. In
September of 1918 Jewish communist Grigori Zinoviev advocated the
extermination of ten million Russians. In 1919 Lenin called for the
deaths of millions of Christian peasants --the kulaks.

"...for Hitler, Bolshevism was a genuinely terrible vision constantly
before the eyes." (Ernst Nolte, "The Holocaust Must Be Seen in
Context," The Independent, Nov. 5, 1988).

The horrors of Jewish Bolshevism is a vision almost never seen on our
telescreens or newspaper pages. The media of mass communications have
been dominated by Khazars and their sympathizers almost since its
inception. (Cf. Neal Gabler, How the Jews Invented Hollywood and
William Cash, "Kings of the Deal," The Spectator, Oct. 29, 1994).

The myth is that Jews were regarded suspiciously in Germany in the
1930s and eventually punished solely due to sheer Teutonic or
Christian cruelty and irrational hatred. Policed entirely out of the
agenda is the fact that while Nazism was rising in Germany in the
1930s, Jewish Communist commissars were adminstering death camps and
gulags for millions of Christians trapped inside the borders of the
Soviet empire, a fact never revealed in "Holocaust" studies or movies.

While Khazars cry the loudest whenever any group or force obstructs
their ambitions--these cries being infinitely magnified by the
unprecedented brainwashing abilities of the electronic visual
media--it does not necessarily follow that Khazars are in fact the
most persecuted or long-suffering of the peoples of the world.

The full, graphic acount of what the Jewish Communists did to Russia
and Eastern Europe has yet to be told.

Another objection to this writing will be that it is, by definition
"neo-Nazi" and "crypto-fascist" simply because it does actually dare
to do what Jewish historians and writers do weekly to Christianity:
criticize it.

Winston Churchill: The Politically Correct Exterminator

Then there is the "extermination" issue. If one attempts a revaluation
of the Communist propaganda about Germany which has been absorbed into
the body politic of the capitalist West, one is met with the cry of
being "an apologist for exterminators." Such lofty moralizing does not
even begin to signify anything unless it is consistent. The same
critique, then, must be launched against all those "conservatives" and
pseudo- "Christians" who defend or admire Winston Churchill. If
Churchill is absolved, one can expect some revisionists to also
absolve Hitler.

For it is no less a democratic icon than Winston Churchill who
advocated the extermination of the civilian population of Germany
through air strikes on all German city centers. On July 8, 1940
Churchill wrote that what was needed against the Germans was, "an
absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers on
the Nazi homeland..." (Source: Geoffrey Wheatcroft, Spectator, Sept.
29, 1979).

In 1956 Churchill told President Eisenhower, "I am, of course, a
Zionist, and have been ever since the Balfour Declaration." ( Herbert
Mitgang, "The Official Churchill in One Volume," N.Y. Times, Nov. 6,
1991).

This campaign of Allied extermination of the German people had been
inaugurated on May 11, 1940 when the Royal Air Force (R.A.F.) was the
first to bomb cities, in this case, German cities:

"Churchill ordered a series of night raids on Berlin for the specific
purpose of diverting German attacks from the airfields of London.
After Berlin was attacked six times, the German air force was ordered
to attack London, and, as Churchill anticipated, the pressure on the
airfields was relieved. Thus began the blitz." (Benjamin Colby, Twas a
Famous Victory, p.173, emphasis supplied).

But it would not be until Arthur Harris became commander-in-chief of
the R.A.F.'s Bomber Command in February of 1942 that Churchill's plan
for the extermination of the German people by fire was attempted with
total committment. "Harris was...single-minded in his aim: the
systematic destruction of German cities....His new campaign was
inaugurated on March 28, 1942 with the 234-aircraft attack on Lubeck,
a medieval town, strategically insignificant but in Harris's words,
'more like a fire-lighter than a human habitation.' Lubeck was burned
to the ground, the first of many...

"The Ruhr towns were attacked from March to June 1943, Hamburg from
July to November, Berlin from November until March, 1944...Using much
more sophisticated techniques of electronic navigation, of marking and
of bombing, the city was first broken up by explosives-- 'cookies'
designed to blow open doors and windows--and then rained with
incendiaries. Repeated raids overwhelmed the civil defense nd fire
services. Bomber Command attacked Hamburg on 24 July, again on 27
July, with American attacks in between. The raid of the 27th created a
vast firestorm, destroying 22 square kilometres of the city and
killing an estimated 42,000 people. Fifteen months later Harris would
boast that Bomber Command 'has virtually destroyed 45 out of the
leading 60 German cities...

"One undefended city after another was devastated from end to end by
explosion and fire, 'browned' as the repellent R.A.F. phrase had
it...Darmstadt was a beautiful old town in south-west Germany,
economically insignificant and untouched until 11 September 1944, when
it was 'browned' and 12,300 of its inhabitants were killed...

"The most famous target in this last phase was Dresden in February,
1945...But Dresden was no different in kind from the other terror
raids before...(A month later) Wurzburg...a town of complete
(military) unimportance...16 March, 1945...Bomber Command razed the
town to the ground in slightly less than 20 minutes. Wurzburg, like
600,000 German (civilians), had surrendered unconditionally.

"What was especially reprehensible was the way in which Churchill
tried at the end of the war to disassociate himself from the
bombing... After the war Churchill could still write--privately--to an
air marshall: 'We should never allow ourselves to apologize for what
we did to Germany.' But he had the instincts of a professional
politician, and foresaw a reaction. On 28 March 1945 he drafted a
memorandum: 'It seems to me the moment has come when the question of
bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror,
though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.

"... it (is) impossible for an Englishman born after the war to travel
through Germany without a sense of shame...seeing medieval Nuremburg
which Allied aircraft burnt to the ground and where Allied prosecutors
had the effrontery to accuse Goering and Kesselring of bombing
Coventry and Rotterdam...' ( Wheatcroft, Spectator, op. cit. Also cf.
Max Hastings, Bomber Command.).

Christopher Mayhew, former President of the Oxford Union and a British
soldier stationed in Germany wrote: "Have you seen a blitzed town?
London isn't blitzed. Norwich is practically undamaged, a prosperous
peaceful town. German towns are blitzed." (London Review of Books,
June 20, 1985, p.8).

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Another Accomplice in the Attempted
Extermination of the German People

Americans too are culpable. As historian Ronald Schaffer has
documented, President Franklin D. Roosevelt approved and encouraged
the mass murder of German women and children by the U.S. Army Air
Force. A top Roosevelt staff adviser, David T. Griggs, stated the
administration's military policy explicitly when he wrote that the
effort of the U.S. air forces "should be directed to the disruption of
the German economy and the terrorization of the German people."
(Ronald Schaffer, Wings of Judgment: American Bombing in World War
Two, p. 94).

It was American P-5l Mustang pilots who swooped down along the banks
of the river Elbe as masses of terrified German women and children
huddled in the daylight aftermath of the firebombing of Dresden. The
pilots machine-gunned these pitiful survivors en masse.

In the decay of language that is a signpost of the Orwellian
dissolution of independent thinking in our time, the word holocaust,
which by original definition denotes death by fire, is now assigned
almost exclusively to the deaths of Jews, allegedly by gas. 600,000
German civilians deliberately burned alive as Allied policy, receive
no such "holocaust victim" status. In fact, it is regarded as some
sort of blasphemy against the canons of "The Holocaust" civic religion
that anyone other than a victim of Hitler is described thus.

But anyone who takes the time and trouble to read the official
Strategic Bombing Survey, prepared by the U.S. War Department, under
the section "Morale Division-Medical Branch Report: The Effect of
Bombing on Health and Medical Care in Germany," will find horrorific
photographs and testimony which testifying that the "holocaust"
victims of World War Two also included the German civilians and in the
Pacific theatre, the civilian residents of Tokyo, Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.

One survivor of the holocaust against the German people was Helga
Hudepohl who wrote, "I was in the isolation ward of a clearly marked
children's hospital in a rural area some 50 miles out side the city
(of Berlin), 7 years old and ill with scarlet fever, when the hospital
was bombed to bits and pieces by Harris' jolly group...Had there
really been a fair 'Judgement at Nuremberg,' Harris would have been
one of the accused and have been sent to the gallows as a war
criminal." (Letters, N.Y. Times, Jan. 18, 1992, p. 22).

The deliberate extermination of the German people through air power
resounded among military forces on the ground through the mouthpiece
of the chief propagandist for the Soviet empire, the Jewish Communist
comunications genius, Ilya Ehrenberg. While any college kid can invoke
the name of Joseph Goebbels as eponymous with propaganda, Ehrenburg's
contribution to this infernal science is virtually unknown.

It was Ehrenburg who urged the troops of the Red Army, as they
advanced upon the eastern borders of a prostrate and defeated Germany,
to rape and kill every German civilian they could find. Every German
girl over the age of eight in the German village of Nemmersdorf was
raped. German women were nailed to the sides of barns.

At Yalta and Potsdam Truman and Churchill approved Stalin's call for
the forced deportation of millions of ethnic Germans in those
territories ceded to him. This resukted in the mass deportation of all
Germans from lands east of the rivers Oder and Neisse. Thousands of
German civilians were crammed into railroad cattle cars by the
Communists. Those Soviet trains arrived in Berlin with a cargo of dead
and dying German children packed like sardines. No "holocaust" movies
have been made about the plight of these hapless children. They were
of the wrong nationality and religion.

In Czechoslovakia in July, 1945, German women and children were tossed
from bridges and more than 2,000 massacred.

By the end of 1946, German civilians in the British-occupied zone were
receiving as little as 400 calories of food per day--half the ration
the inmates at Belsen had received under the Nazis.

When the post-war expulsions and pogroms were over, two million German
civilians were dead and fourteen million driven from their ancestral
lands in one of the greatest acts of population-transfer in modern
history.

We are told that World War Two was "the Good War" against "Germany, a
nation conceived in hell itself" (Leslie Gelb, NY Times), "the
greatest evil ever produced on earth" (Simon Schama).

But in so far as our psyche can disengage itself from Jewish
demonizing, the reality is that WWII was a total war, an "unlimited,
unconditional war" against not just Hitler and the Nazis but German
women, children and defenseless elderly who were held to be
collectively guilty.

President Roosevelt stated, "The German people as a whole must have it
driven home to them that the whole nation has been engaged in a
lawless conspiracy against the decencies of civilization." ( Robert
Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foeign Policy, pp.
472-473).

To teach them these "decencies," Mr. Roosevelt sanctioned the policies
of the extirpation of German women and children through air force
bombs and pal "Uncle Joe" Stalin's awfully decent Red Army.

Can there be any bloodier a killer on the earth than the do-gooder
liberal? Roosevelt's mentality was first echoed in the U.S. in Abraham
Lincoln's abolitionist legions who were going to punish the South for
its "sins."

Maximillien Robespierre, leader of the French Revolution and the
"reign of terror," wrote: "It is necessary to exterminate all those
vile and scoundrely beings who conspire eternally against the rights
of man and against the happiness of all people."

A Jewish N.Y. Times editor, Judith Miller, along with most of the kept
press, indicted the Ayatolah Khomeni of Iran for demanding of Iraq
only "unconditional surrender" during the Iran-Iraq war. (N.Y. Times,
May 17, 1992, p. E-3).

In the Jewish mentality, only the enemies of Judaism must be fought
unconditionally.

From this mentality was born Menachem Begin's Beirut, Lebanon, August,
1982 and George Bush's Baghdad, Iraq, 1991. In both wars the
indiscriminate bombing of the civilian population was central to
military strategy, all in the name of sticky-sweet, fairy godmother
platitudes coupled with the dehumanization of the Palestinian and
Iraqi people. In both wars the mass murder of civilians by air power
caused only a ripple of mild protest.

Dynastic Christian autocrats of antiquity, equated with "persecution"
and "religious superstition" by the pundits of our "enlightened era,"
never implemented any such mass murder military policy as we saw the
Allies commit in World War Two and the Israeli air force perpetrate on
Beirut in the summer of 1982. ( Tony Clifton, God Cried).

The groundwork for the military policy of total war emerged in Abraham
Lincoln's war against Southern independence; especially in the conduct
of Generals Sheridan and Sherman. In the Old World, the British war
against the Dutch- South African "Boer" civilians was an augur of the
forthcoming "blessings" of the 20th century. The British can be
acknowledged as the inventors of the first "concentration" camps where
thousands of Boer women and children perished.

But while Lincoln was martyred and subsequently canonized as a secular
Federal saint, his military practice was reversed by his successor
Johnson almost immediately and with the exception of the most foaming
abolitionists, the Southern people were soon viewed by their Northern
brethren, as much wronged. A similar revulsion occurred in Britain in
the wake of the pacification of the Boers.

Hence it would take the Jewish mentality, ascribing to its opponents
absolute evil unmitigated in terms of reprisals for any previous
Jewish crimes, to create a lasting marriage between modern policies
and resources for total warfare and the permanent dehumanization of
the people against whom those policies are directed, be they Germans,
Palestinians or Iraqis.

It is not only Khazars or their proxies who slaughter civilian
populations. World War I was a more than adequate example of the
penchant for slaughter on the part of senile monarchs and corrupt
politicians and generals, Axis or Allied. But it took the Jewish
mentality to paint such slaughter in the terms of a perpetual morality
play wherein any crime is permissible provided it is directed against
those who have dared to raise their heads against Judaism and who, by
Jewish theological definition, can be the only criminals.

Hitler and "Jewjitsu"

The larger question arises concerning whether Hitler really was an
enemy of the Jewish people. One does not refer here to a parochial
sense of the war years themselves but rather to their long-term
consequences. Hitler as a German nationalist who had assigned himself
the task of revival of Western civilization amid the decay, saw in the
isolation, separation and if necessary, the destruction of world
Jewry, the salvation of Germany and European culture.

But the sum effect of his effort was that Hitler was the real founder
of the Israeli state. By losing the war against the Khazars he
guaranteed them the public relations bonanza of all time and these
masters of guilt-inducement took the ball all the way to nationhood.

Hitler's faith in the benevolence of the Judeo-masonic government of
Britain and the Jewish ghetto known as the Vatican revealed that he
was another one of those naive schoolboys the right-wing in the West
routinely produces.

Moreover, his government was riddled with spies and traitors and he
gave the most important post of the entire German military, the
Luftwaffe, to Göring, who by that time had degenerated into a fat
clown out of a comic opera. By 1944 the German people had a popular
saying, that, "There was no roof over the Reich." This is not to in
anyway disparage the heroism of the individual pilots and commanders
of the legendary Luftwaffe's defensive fighter force, which was the
best in the world, but rather the criminal incompetence of Göring.

The chief supporters of the revival of Hitlerism in the world today
are the Jews. Because they hysterically denounce any honest historical
discussion of the virtues as well as the faults of the man and his
regime, they are thereby building up immense pressure within the
young, who are understandably discontented and therefore, attracted to
that which Hitler represents.

When a corrupt society wholly condemns a single individual as the
"wickedest man in the history of the world," those discontented
elements of society who are convinced that the system under which they
live is profoundly evil ,will naturally gravitate toward this
forbidden, near-mythic figure of evil. Their logic will be, "If this
stinking society says he was bad, he must have been good."

The failure to demythologize Hitler, not just in terms of Hannah
Arendt's "banality of evil," but by making an appraisal of the man
independent of the function and requirements of Allied and Jewish
propaganda, would show him to have been both good and bad; a product
of his times set within the context of the mass murder-machine the
Jewish Communists had got going in Russia from 1917 onward.

The Inner Dynamic of Judaism

Physical persecution of the Jewish people has always and everywhere
failed in European history as a tactic for confining the kind of
internal influence Pharisees have in native societies.

Pogroms and persecutions are completely counterproductive when dealing
with the Jews. It must be remembered that Judaism is an inherently
self-destructive, paranoid creed and the various bickering factions
within Judaism are at any given time on the verge of civil war. The
only factor that can truly unite the Khazars and make them a single
force for power on the world stage, is physical persecution and
attack.

Without such attack, they inevitably crumble from internal strife.
This is why their Sanhedrin secretly promotes and funds violent
persecution of Jewish people when such opposition is not present among
the resident peasantry of a given nation. If you want to heal the
world, leave the Jews alone, physically. They will destroy themselves
or convert and reform.

The problem is, they won't leave us alone. Whenever we get the thing
they fear the most going--when we get going what they
have--community--that's when they unleash every force in their arsenal
against us.

Under the current system, a critic of Talmudism and Phariseeism must
always be labeled as a fascist. The term is used by people who don't
know what it means. The most basic concept central to fascism is the
utilization of the power of the state through centralization, to
achieve certain sanctioned ends: the unity of the nation, the
advancement of technology, the solution to the problems of
unemployment and housing.

Fascism as a system of organization has nothing to do with opposition
to Jews. The founders of the Fascist party in Italy were Jews. Right
wing Zionists of the 1930s and 40s consciously styled themselves
Fascists. The Israeli government is allied with the fascist Phalange
Party of Lebanon, whose militia police the "security zone" in occupied
South Lebanon on behalf of the Zionists.

The most successful fascist government was Franklin Roosevelt's
administration whose "New Deal" economic program marshalled the full
resources of the state to operate businesses, conduct commerce,
confiscate wages and earnings.

The neo-Nazi invective is equally empty and like "fascist" has meaning
only as an insult intended to intimidate people who tell the truth
fearlessly. It is a manufactured attribute imposed on critics of
Judaism by Jews who insist that to expose their religion or its
government in occupied Palestine to free and irreverent inquiry is
tantamount to being a militiarist, a racist and a lover of
dictatorship--and this from a militarist, racist, dictatorial Israeli
regime.

The greatest weapon against the Zionists is exposure, to have the
widest possible study, analaysis and dissemination of their authentic
teachings and practices in every field of human endeavor. This will
not only protect non-Jews but will also help in the conversion of the
Jewsish people themselves.

Unlike the Allied mass murderers who hold the German people
collectively culpable (as historian Daniel Goldhagen has decreed), one
cannot and must not hold the Jewish people as whole collectively
guilty, but only their leaders, religious and civil, i.e the latter
day Pharisees.

The New Testament "blood taint" can no longer apply because the
original Jewish race of 2,000 years past is as dead as is the Roman
race with which it was contemporary. There is no pure "Jewish" blood
today, only a racial melting pot of Khazar, Black and Oriental races
designated as "Jewish" on the political expediency.

The greatest allies in the struggle against the evils of Judaism have
been in the past and will be in the future, authentic converts from
Judaism (for example Nicholas of Donin and Johannes Pffeferkorn).

The emphasis here must be on authenticity, however. The current "Jews
for Jesus" movement is a telling example of a sham conversion since
this group militantly supports the murders and racism of the Zionist
Israeli state in contravention of every Christian principle. They have
attempted to make Christ into a Pharisee. This is an abomination and
these are no true converts. "By their fruits ye shall no them."

Zionists Behind Anti-Jewish Violence

A productive investigation for an enterprising historian would be the
pursuit of the following line of enquiry: to what extent did the
Zionist Jewish leadership encourage Hitler's violent anti-Jewish
policies and to what extent do they encourage or actually themselves
commit violent attacks upon Jews today?

Rabbi E. Schwartz, writing in the N.Y. Times of May 18, 1993: "To
achieve their goal of statehood the Zionists have always deliberately
provoked anti-Semitism...Their interest was not to save Jews, on the
contrary, more spilling of Jewish blood would strengthen their demand
of the nations for the creation of their state."

Why would Zionists want to assist violent anti-Jewish opposition?
Perhaps they understand well that Jewish propaganda requires violent
opposition to Jewry and synagogue and cemetery vandalism, in order to
expand their influence and power and where none exist they either
incite it by means of their control of Hollywood-style, neo-Nazi front
groups, or they perpetrate the actions themselves.

Just Law Enforcement, Not Persecution

Jewish murderers, kidnappers, rapists, usurers and those engaged in
treason and subversion can be executed by the civil authorities upon
indictment, prosecution and conviction in fair criminals trials
operated within the safeguards of the common law jury and appeal
process. The critical point is that they would be executed not because
they were Jewish, but because they were murderers, rapists,
kidnappers, usurers, traitors and subversives. Moreover, non-Jewish
usury bankers, loan sharks, murderers, rapists, kidnappers and
abortionists are even more culpable than Zionist crooks and killers,
since the non-Jewish criminals are additionally guilty of betraying
their own kind. These would most certainly be liable to a death
penalty for their crimes.

In this way the ruling class, arch-criminals in the masonic and
corporate elite who seek to escape justice when Biblical forces come
to power, on the basis of their skin color or claims about their
naivete,´ will be foiled. The Pharisees could never have gotten to
first base in their push for the reign of Anti-Christ were it not for
their allies among the masonic and corporate overclass--nearly
dynastic families who are attempting to impose a police state for the
benefit of bankers, lawyers, Zionists and their "Aryan" cronies.

Equal Rights and Justice

Legal executions of Pharisees who are guilty of crimes cannot be
considered as "violent opposition" to Jewish people because these
actions would be meted out uniformly, without regard to race or creed,
on the basis of crimes committed by any malefactor. Hence the
punishment is a legal rather than a vigilante function of the civil
powers who, according to the Bible, "bear not the sword in vain."

There will be those who will ask, "Why accord Jewish killers--or any
other killer for that matter--benefit of law? If we know they are
culpable, why not just initiate summary executions?"

History teaches that such vigilante acts always denegerate into a
witchhunt against innocents with whom the vigilantes have private
scores and vendettas to settle, and who exact their revenge by means
of lumping their personal enemies into the general category of
"enemies of the people." Such actions are the hallmark of the French
Revolution and Bolshevism and of Oriental despotism and Latin American
societies--forms of corruption and cruelty which are inimical to
Biblical and European yeoman values.

In a key exchange attributed to Sir Thomas More by Robert Bolt, More
answers the objections of his hot-headed son-in-law, Roper, who urges
him to use his position as Lord Chancellor to eliminate his enemies:

"Mrs. More: While you talk, he's gone! (A reference to More's
dangerous personal enemy, Richard Rich, who has just left the house).

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke
the law!

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get
after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that.

More: Oh? And when the law was down and the Devil himself turned
'round on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast...and if
you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--do you really
think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes,
I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."

In the preceding dialogue we observe the ethos later exhibited by the
American Revolutionaries of 1776 who were successful in winning and
sustaining a revolution based on justice and equality before the law.
Khazars cannot legitimately claim persecution under such a system of
just law and enforcement. Indeed, it is the integrity of just such a
system which distinguishes our values and way of life from those of
Zionists, Oriental despots and banana republics.

Deep into the Psychology of Opposition

Hitler's techniques has been harnessed today in America to the ends of
the contemporary corporate, capitalist state and exhibited at great
profit at every stadium-sized, "rock muzak" concert and every "Super
Bowl" and "World Series."

If there is any genuine, potent, corporate "neo-Nazism" extant today,
it exists on the rock stage or the pro sports field, where the same
sloganeering, and submission, as was witnessed in the techniques and
adulation accorded Hitler and the Nazi party, are put in service of
the American capitalist system. But whereas at least Hitler did these
things in the name of his nation and indigenous culture, American
corporate fascism exists solely to enrich a gangster class of money
grubbers.

And lest it be thought that we imagine that only Jews grub for lucre,
the lessons of our literature, from the American Mrs. McTeague in
Frank Norris' McTeague, who out-Jewed the Jewish ragman in avarice, to
the Englishman Monks in Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist , who outdid
Fagin in villainy, and Mark Twain's townful of crooked hypocrites in
Hadleyburg, are all reminders that we are not to imagine that white
Aryans possess any immunities from evil or that Jewish persons possess
any monopoly upon them.

But they key here is that by casting themselves as hunted fugitives
from Christian vigilantes, the Jewish psychology has been able to
blackmail humanity into tolerating the Jewish invasion of Palestine
and the displacement and murder of its people, along with control of,
or inordinate influence over, the money and mass media of every
Western nation. In truth Jewish operatives have controlled the
governments of the West for decades and in some cases (Great Britain
for example), centuries. If we look deep beneath the hoodwink we
observe that it is the non-Jewish dissidents who are the victims of
the supposed "Jewish martyrs."

The Mentality

When a Jewish professor of philosophy from Louisiana State Univ.
attacked the late anthropologist Joseph Campbell as an anti-semite, he
phrased the attack not in terms of the quest for the truth about the
nature of the Jews, but in terms of how Jews are "disparaged" by
Campbell. The Jewish professor said that Joseph Campbell, "invariably
disparaged Judaism as literalistic, chauvinistic and parochial--stock
anti-semitic epithets." (NY Times Dec. 2, 1989, p. 26).

In other words, Campbell is wrong because he spoke truths that
"disparage" Judaism. These truths are identified as coming from a
"stock" of epithets that the writer identifies as being hateful or
anti-semitic. But since it is true that Judaism is parochial and
highly chauvinistic, how does it become grounds for censure when these
truths have been known for hundreds, even thousands of years and form
a body of traditional Western observation upon the Jews which the
Jewish writer seeks to delegitimize by terming them "epithets?"

Another phenomenon at work is the assumption that Jews themselves have
no framework of hate within their own tradition, no "stock epithets"
for Christians. Anti-Christianism isn't even a recognized term in the
English language. To defend one's Western heritage and point to the
stock epithets of anti-Christianism prominent in Judaism, is to
practice hate, according to the received opinion of our day.

For Jews to accuse a non-Jew of hating Jews is a noble act of human
rights pique. But for a non-Jew to accuse a Jew of hating Gentiles is
itself regarded as hateful. This mentality of the hypocritical
double-standard is a Jewish mentality.

Jews absolve themselves of much of what they accuse others of.
Syndicated columnist Joseph Sobran states:

"The name of this little game is keeping the goyim on the defensive at
all times. If they can't be refuted, attack them personally: Insinuate
that whatever they say in their own defense is actuated by the worst
motives, motives which it goes without saying, have no equivalent
among Jews themselves, who are always acting in self-defense. The
standard public rhetoric only recognizes anti-Semitism, it hardly
imagines the possibility of anti-Gentilism...It's as if hatred, fear,
suspicion and contempt could only occur on one side.

"...There is no hyphenated cussword in general use to stigmatize
hostility to Christianity...Leon Wieseltier can call a cross on a
convent at Auschwitz 'sickening,' and nobody condemns him...Israeli
soldiers can beat up a priest on the West Bank, then shoot up his
church during Mass, and only the Catholic press takes note...If
Christians had done such a thing to a synagogue, anywhere, it would
have been front-page news, everywhere. (Wanderer, Oct. 12, 1989, p. 7;
National Review, March 16, 1992, p. S-5).

Indeed, in the fabrication of so-called, in the dreadful Newspeak of
New York Times-ese, "hate speech" law codes, law makers deliberately
design them with the concept of silencing critics of Jews on the
assumption that only the critics of the Jews are capable of hate; the
supposition being that Jews are immune to hating or if they do hate,
their hatreds must be excused in light of the "Holocaust." Michael
Thomas, writing in Hanover Place, states, "...these days there seems
to be quite a few people who shout 'Holocaust!' when given a parking
ticket."

Timothy Danson, a Canadian constitutional lawyer, advocates laws for
the suppression of critics of Judaism: "...the concept of freedom of
speech does not entail the protection by the courts, of malicious
lies." Here we see the axiom that anyone who criticizes Judaism is a
liar. This is a totalitarian position and makes the Jews divine in the
way the European monarchs and Chinese emperors were regarded as having
"Divine Right."

Danson goes on to say, "Anti-semitism does not fall within the
category of ideas or opinions that ought to be protected by the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The anti-semite has chosen
hate...and therefore he need not concern himself with truth or
reason."

This Canadian lawyer is saying that to criticize Judaism or Jews is an
act of hate. Because he is totally steeped in the Jewish version of
the world this lawyer cannot conceive of the possibility that Judaism
might be a tyranny and to criticize tyranny is liberation.

This Canadian Constitutional lawyer states that opposition to Jews
cannot be grounded in truth or reason. That is to say, according to
Mr. Danson, it is irrational and mendacious to criticize Jews or
Judaism. Here we see the creation of a special category of immunity
for Judaism.

Mr. Danson goes further and states that those who criticize Judaism
are insane criminals: "The anti-semite's point of departure emanates
from irrationality..The anti-semite is a sadist, and in the very
depths of his heart, a criminal."

Thus the critics of Judaism are dehumanized to the utmost: they are
cruel, they are criminals, they are crazy. Criminals and the insane
have no rights and this is precisely what this prominent Canadian
constitutional lawyer is advocating: that those who dare to criticize
Judaism ("anti-semites") be denied any rights.

But the question springs to mind, what of Jews who criticize or hate
Palestinians or Christians, are they also insane sadists and criminals
who must be dealt with by Canada's "criminal justice system"?

Mr. Danson has the answer: "History speaks of the bloody persecution
of the Jews over the centuries." In Mr. Danson's world-view, carefully
imbibed from the official history of the Jewish version of education
and information, only Jews suffered a notable "bloody persecution."
Palestinians and Christians are cast only as the villains, never the
victims of Zion. (Canadian Jewish News, Aug. l8, l988, p. 9).

The psychiatricization of the issue is a commonplace. Kenneth Stern,
the American Jewish Committee's expert on "hate groups" (they mean
gentile hate groups since Jewish supremacists and terrorists are not
included) and author of A Force Upon the Plain: The American Militia
Movement and the Politics of Hate regards the militia, a Second
Amendment constititional phenomenon, as "the eruption of irrational
behavior." They are also "paranoid" and possessed of a "deteriorating
mental state." (Cf. N.Y. Times, Feb. 12, 1996, p. B-2).

Funny, but this writer knows of a nation of people who have made a
religion out of paranoia. In fact Stern's book is filled with page
after page of warnings about an "impending pogrom" against--guess who?

History is more than the records that issue from the official sources
and the monopolies on academic investigation. The founding leadership
of the communist movement in Russia responsible for the slaughter of
20 million Christians, was predominately Jewish. The mass murder of
Palestinian women and children by the Israeli army and air force is a
modern example of Jewish atrocities against non-Jews. This slaughter
was aided by the Soviet communist Jews who in 1948 smuggled weapons to
the Zionists in Tel Aviv using Czechosloakia as a conduit. (Christian
News, May 31, 1993, p.7).

One of the bloodiest butchers of Russian Christians was Leon
Bronstein, a Jew who later changed his name to Trotsky and was the
first commander of the communist Red Army. Trotsky's great, great
grandson, David Axelrod, resides in Israel where he terrorizes
Palestinian civilians just as his great, great grandfather terrorized
Russian Christians. In November of 1990, Axelrod shot to death an
elderly Arab couple who were on their way to pick olives in a village
near Nablus (Village Voice, Nov. 20, 1990, p. 30).

Anti-Semanticism

What is also very interesting about the term anti-semitism which has
escaped analysis is that the use of the phrase is itself an instrument
of hate since it is a means of equating a person with being "insane,"
a "criminal" and a "sadist." Persons thus labeled are subject to the
loss of employment, housing and civil and human rights.

What is the definition of an anti-semitic act? In so serious a crime,
the felonious conduct should be clearly indicated. In spite of much
palaver to the contrary, the definition is much akin to the logic of
the Red Queen of Alice's Wonderland who said that a word was "Anything
I want it to be." Someone is an anti-semite simply by criticizing
Jews, Judaism or the Israeli state. In other words, for doing anything
that Jews deem offensive.

For example, when journalist Patrick Buchanan criticized the Jewish
role in the formation of U.S. Middle East foreign policy, Abe
Rosenthal, contributing editor of the N.Y. Times, compared Buchanan to
Nazi soldiers who forced Jews into the Warsaw ghetto! (NY Times, Sept.
27, 1990, p. 14). The term anti-semite then, applies equally to the
murderers of Jews as to the critics of Jews.

Profesor of Literature Hugh Kenner in a letter to William F. Buckley
Jr.: "The points on which I agree with Joe Sobran are 1a)that the
state of Israel is mighty arrogant in its presumption of entitlement
to U.S. handouts and general compliance; 1b) that a large &
influential U.S. Jewish population shares this presumption...2) that
'anti-semitism' is a rather facile label for habitual objections to 1a
and 1b...I note from a recent NY Times that Abe Rosenthal...was not
satisfied with your treatment of Pat Buchanan.

"It is surely evident that such as he will never be satisfied by
anything short of a casting of whoever annoys them into outer
darkness, and I think it is a mistake to let them control the terms of
the discourse. 'Anti-semitism'--here I agree with Joe--has no stable
meaning; it can run all the way from gas ovens to a mere wish that Abe
R. would moderate his frenzies. And a term that has no stable meaning
is simply not a profitable head for rational discussions." (National
Review, March 16, 1992, p. S-22).

It is questionable whether Kenner's statement would even be allowed
once Orwellian "hate speech" criminal codes are fully developed and
enforced. Any kind of deep, critical thinking analyzing matters such
as who sets the terms of discourse and what the phrase anti-semitism
actually means (nothing) and is used for (to silence original
thought), are slated to be criminalized. Kenner's reasoned attempt to
decide what are the grounds for "rational discussion" would be labeled
as "irrational" and "sadistic."

The defense against Prof. Kenner's thoughts must be in terms of the
denunciation of a heretic, a "criminally insane hater" who has the
gall to deny the True Faith of Absolute Belief in the Infallible
Goodness of Judaism. The superstructure of piety is erected over the
framework of debate. The state religion of the otherwise agnostic,
terminal West emerges--the Church of the "Holocaust"--cloaked in the
moth-eaten, dusty, ermine robes not used since the coronations of
popes, czars and emperors.

High Priest Eric Breindel of the NY Post announces that "after
Auschwitz, express hostility to the essential Zionist endeavor on the
part of a Western intellectual requires an explanation." (NY Post,
Jan. 16, 1992, p. 27).

The Los Angeles Times decrees the fantastic dogma that public
criticisms of Jews are precursors of a Holocaust. (L.A. Times, Feb. 6,
1990, p. A-5).

Milking the guilt-dogma of this state religion, the N.Y. Times alleges
that "It reeks of anti-semitism to suggest that survivors of the
Holocaust are to be condemned for establishing a haven in the only
state in which Jews form the majority." (NY Times, Dec. 17, 1991, p.
20). Here is the sacred state-church dogma of the "Holocaust" in
action as it is invoked to block condemnation of the "holy" Israeli
people and achieve political gain for the Zionist state.

The association of a stench with condemnation of Israeli murder and
dispossession of Palestinians effectively stops any further
clearheaded analysis of the terms the NY Times has established for
dealing with Israelis. By the same logic, Cambodians must be immune
from condemnation if they murder and dispossess ethnic Chinese and
Vietnamese in Cambodia, because they too are "survivors of a
holocaust" who are "establishing a haven in the only state in which
Cambodians form the majority."

According to Prof. Irv Abella, "The Holocaust metaphor being used
against Israel is a group libel..." (Canadian Jewish News, Dec. 26,
1991, p. 4). Apparently Jews have a copyright on the word, a
proprietary relationship that forbids its application to the mass
murders the "holy people" themselves perpetrate upon mere
Palestinians.

That we are dealing with a religious impulse rather than merely a
debate between competing ideas can be seen in the fact that the
believers in the Church of the Holocaust are unable even to imagine an
alternative view. Joseph Sobran in his published debate with William
Buckley:

"An anti-semite' in actual usage, is less often a man who hates Jews
than a man certain Jews hate. The word expresses the emotional
explosion that occurs in people who simply can't bear critical
discourse about a sacred topic, and who experience criticism as
profanation and blasphemy. The term 'anti-semitism' doesn't stand for
any intelligible concept. It belongs not to the world of rational
discourse, but to the realm of imprecations and maledictions and
ritual ostracisms." (National Review, March 16, l992, p. S-5).

Sobran's epigram about anti-semitism being more properly defined as a
man Jews hate, is corroborated by the knowledge that when Jews
heatedly disagree with one another they sometimes call each other
"anti-semites." When Michael Bar-Zohar of the Israeli Labour Party
voted for religious Jews to be subject to the Israeli army draft like
all other able-bodied young Jews, he was called an "anti-semite" and a
"Nazi" by members of the Shas and Degel HaTorah parties in the
Knesset. (The Jewish Ledger, April 2, 1992, p. 24).

When Israeli Prime Minister Yithak Rabin chose to recognize the
Palestine Liberation Organization in Gaza, his Jewish political rivals
produced posters showing Rabin dressed in a Nazi uniform. Later this
"Nazi" was murdered by a fellow Zionist.

It is fitting that in this most stupid of all ages, when man has
become puffed up on his own supposed scientific grasp of the universe
he presumes to have mastered, that we should witness the crowning
self-mockery of this creed of rational modern progress, in its
enslavement to the racist, superstitious religion of Judaism, to which
all good citizens of the One World Utopia must make obeisance or stand
stigmatized as "anti-see mites," a species akin to that of an insect.

The insect analogy is apropos. The former chief of staff of the
Israeli armed forces, Raphael Eitan, referred to the Palestinian
people as "cockroaches scurrying around in a bottle."

The Blood and Soil ideology of Zionism which has violently
dispossessed the native Palestinians of 92%% of their land and which
guarantees immigration only to Jews, is racist to the core. Equality
between Arabs and Jews in the Israeli state is a fiction. Yet,
according to the N.Y. Times, to say that Zionism is just
that--organized, nationalistic racism-- "remains code language for
bigotry." (NY Times, Sept. 24, 1991, p. 30).

By N.Y. Times logic it is an act of bigotry to point out that Zionism
constitutes bigotry against Arabs.

This is the Jewish mentality par excellence.

They've internalized their chauvinism to such an extent that they are
literally incapable of objectivity or dispassionate examination of
their own foibles, pretensions, myths and legends. And the idea that
speaking out against the racism of Zionism, is some form of racism, is
a palimpsest of fraud. Beneath the branch of Zionism is an even more
unlovely tree, the ferocious hate-mongering at the very heart of the
religion of Judaism.

Tall Tales

Only a nation of infants who have been spoon-fed the pablum of
relentless Jewish propaganda would question the reality of Judaism's
race-hate doctrines. Jewish hasbara (propaganda) is first and foremost
based on brazen lying, the more outrageous the better. Though they
have accused Hitler of the Big Lie technique they are themselves the
chief practicioners of it. In addressing the Jewish leadership, Christ
said they were, "Of your Father, a murderer and a liar from the
beginning." (John 8:44).

When gas chamber doubter Bradley Smith placed a series of nationwide
advertisements in college newspapers for his views, Harvard Law
professor Alan Dershowitz rushed to respond, denouncing Smith
nationally in print as a "known...anti-Black racist." This was a
complete lie made up out of thin air. Said Smith, "So far as
anti-Black racism goes, in all the stuff I've written over the last 20
years I've never written a word on that issue. It can't even be
argued. It's a complete invention...They make any accusation that
comes to mind, confident that media won't try to find out the truth of
the matter." (Smith's Report, Dec. 1991, pp. 2-3).

A few years ago National Public Radio (NPR), a taxpayer financed
enterprise, championed the cause of 72 year old David S. Rubitsky, who
claimed that only "anti-semitism" was keeping him from receiving the
Congressional Medal of Honor for having single-handedly killed more
than 600 Japanese soldiers in a battle. According to Rubitsky, he
fought off waves of Japanese soldiers in all-night fight and saved his
battalion. He said Japanese bodies were "piled like cordwood." He told
reporters: "Some were still alive. Some I just hit in the shoulder and
couldn't move. Some in the legs. So I would just shoot them and
bayonet them, shoot them and bayonet them. I was a completely insane
man."

As soon as NPR and the NY Times discovered that there was a Jew who
was not getting the highest military award, that magic explanation for
all Jewish troubles, "anti-semitism," was summoned. The Times and NPR
reflexively played the hound to the U.S. Army's hare. As it turned
out, Rubitsky's account was conclusively proved false. Rubitsky's
evidence, a Japanese inscription on a photograph, was judged by both
military experts and historians in the U.S. and Japan to be "100
percent...a forgery."

However, since this was a Jew the media were dealing with, the NY
Times conceded that, "In a reflection of the delicacy of the
matter...Army officials and members of Congress were careful not to
portray Mr. Rubitsky as a deliberate liar...simply an honorable old
soldier with a foggy memory." (NY Times, Dec. 16, pp. 1 and 14; Dec.
17, 1989; also cf. Researcher newsletter, vol. 3, no. 5, p. 1). Indeed
it must have been a very foggy night out there in the Pacific.

One wonders if the perpetrator of this little yarn had been an aging,
hillbilly, good ol' boy from north Alabama, what pyrotechnic paroxysms
of pointed media indignation would have been directed at his church,
his culture and his community?

The same "foggy memories" applied in the Israeli trial of Cleveland
auto-worker John Demjanjuk, where several Jewish "eyewitnesses" swore,
without a trace of doubt or shadow of uncertainty, that Demjanjuk was
the infamous "Ivan the Terrible," gasser-general of Treblinka.
Demjanjuk was convicted and sentenced to hang on the strength of these
"honorable old" Jewish "eyewitnesses." Only later did researchers
working for his family prove that Ivan the Terrible was long dead and
Demjanjuk was not him.

To say that some Jews are known for telling lies is not wrong if it is
the truth.

But the Jewish response is not to argue the point, but to categorize
it and place it in their mad panopoly of pathology. In the Jewish
mentality, to indict some Jews for a crime of which they are guilty is
a form of sickness. Hence to say that some Jews are known for a
propensity to lie, will not evince an admission from Jews that the
Congressional Medal of Honor seeker was a fraud ,as are many so-called
"survivors" of the "Holocaust."

But rather, the Jewish response is to say that accusing Jews of lying
has been part of the "familiar libels" and "stock charges" of history.
No real defense is offered, only the demand, based on the prestige and
media clout of the Jews, that they are to be believed and their
critics silenced and reviled. Elemental discourse with Jews becomes
impossible under such circumstances because Jews insist on
non-negotiable absolutes: that they are, by divine right, God's master
race, and that traditional Western Civilization's portrayal of them as
money-mad, liars and extreme racists is always wrong.

This Jewish stance necessitates an investigation into what Jewish
tradition holds about Western Christian civilization and Gentiles in
general to determine if it is Western tradition that is wrong and
Jewish tradition blameless, or whether they may be something evil
within ancient Jewish tradition.

That we have the right to sift Judaism for evil traditions is
certainly a turnabout of fair play since leading Jewish spokesmen have
been condemning Western traditions as evil since the rise of mass
communications. Denying us the right to sift their tradition for
evidence of evil and criminality while they do it to us constantly, is
the Jewish mentality in action.

Take for purposes of citation, the New Testament story of Jesus
chasing the Jewish money-lenders out of the Temple. If we suggest that
there might be a co-equivalent in our time of Jewish capitalists
robbing the economies of the West, Zionists will condemn the point not
on the basis of fact but by screaming "anti-semitism" and trotting out
their shopworn cliches about "reeks of a stench of bigotry," "an
accusation worthy of medieval inquisitors" and other similar
linguistic devices intended to avoid debate on the merits or lack of
same of the accusation.

Yet the facts speak for themselves: nine out of ten of the people
indicted in Wall Street insider-trading securities' fraud are Jewish.
James B. Stewart's 1991 book about the chief Wall Street money-changer
crook of our time, the Khazar Michael Milken, is aptly titled Den of
Thieves. The sad fact is that, whether 2,000 years ago or now, some
Jews have an innate propensity for crooked financial dealings.

This is admitted privately by the Jews themselves. Chaim Bermant is an
orthodox Jewish columnist for the national Zionist newspaper Jewish
Chronicle based in Britain. In his writing of March 1, 1991 he upholds
the observation that Jews are essentially dependents who must prey on
a productive people in order to survive.

Chaim Bermant asks:

"...why are Jews wildly successful at making money everywhere else in
the world except Israel?..in Israel there are no Gentiles, i.e. no
suckers waiting to be got the better of. Where everybody is on the
ball, how can anybody score goals?"

This is the truth about Israelis from the mouth of a Khazar himself,
whose opinion carried enough of the ring of authenticity, to be
repeated in print in a major Jewish newspaper. Yet if you or I repeat
this truth we are subject to invective and even prosecution.

Yet I maintain that many Irishmen have a propensity for alcoholism,
many Germans for petty bureaucracy, many Americans for mindless
Babbittry, many Scotsmen for parsimony and many Englishman for
homosexuality. Whether I am right or wrong in these characterizations
should be argued on the basis of historical fact and statistical
analysis, not hysterical screaming and laws intended to criminalize
one's thoughts and writings.

In fact, though Irishmen, Germans, Americans, Scots and English might
not like what I have to say and might counter forcefully with facts
and figures of their own to dispel my conceptions, few of them would
seek to pass laws to imprison those who hold such uncomplimentary
views, probably because deep inside, these Irish, Germans, Americans,
Scots and English know their own worth as great peoples who have led
great civilizations.

Jailers, Inquisitors and Thought Controllers

It is the Zionists who have such tremendous insecurities about their
contributions to world history and if truth be told, a clandestine
knowledge of the truth of their critics' accusations, so that they
must resort to the jailer's turnkey to maintain their world hegemony.
It is because the truth carries its own special sting that Jews call
for the imprisonment of their intellectual critics.

The persecution trombone will inevitably squeek out a long row of
shrill notes at this juncture. At long last, a comonsense approach to
this subject must be argued. If Jews habitually lie and cheat whose
fault is it if they are "persecuted" as they call it? The more proper
word is prosecuted.

Moreover, in the annals of history the Irish have been among the most
persecuted people on earth. The treatment of the Germans in the U.S.
during World War One bordered on a lynch-mob mentality and at the end
of World War Two, millions of German civilians perished as a result of
deliberate mass explusions and population transfers. Thanks to Jewish
influence over the media of mass communications, little or none of
this is known to the public.

More importantly, we are enjoined to speak the truth no matter what
the consequences, come what may. It is the mentality of a slave to
hold back or suppress the truth because of what may result from having
spoken or written it. The "poisecution" claim of the Khazars is no
grounds for refusing to tell the truth about them.

All learning is based upon curiosity and curiosity is the unfettered
exploration of that which is interesting. The weird halo of immunity
which surrounds the Jewish nation is a highly interesting sanction and
no scholar must be faulted for defying it. To pretend that we must
approach the Jewish question with some special reverence and reserve,
fearful of causing offense, is a totalitarian expectation.

All investigations must be free and impartial and lead wherever the
evidence leads; anything less is Orwellian. Only in the presence of a
dictator are we compelled to exhibit a fawning sychophancy and certain
Jews have become every inch the dictators of what constitutes the
"proper" bounds of writing and research, as surely as any Ming Dynasty
emperor or Stalinist commissar decreed the perimeters for scholars in
those eras.

Such a dictatorship of the mind can only be rightfully resented.

The Talmud: The Original Hate Propaganda Volumes

What is clear from this debate is that either one heritage or the
other must be indicted as evil: either Western Civlization was
irredeemably evil for having prosecuted and punished the saints and
angels who comprised God's Chosen Representatives on Earth, or Judaism
is an evil creed which instills in its followers a willingness to lie,
cheat and murder those whom their Talmud dehumanizes as goyim,
resulting in natural resistance from non-Jews.

Isn't it interesting that while it is considered utterly correct,
moral and proper to paint the whole of Western Civilization as evil
for alleged crimes against the Jews, it has been ruled totally
inadmissible, immoral and racist to condemn Judaism as an evil force?

In this matter of the Talmud and the allegation that Jews ferociously
hate and despise non-Jews as part of their religious instruction, we
can argue from a body of facts and documentation which will send those
liberals who are always calling for dialogue, scurrying for the
nearest police station to demand our arrest.

They do not want and cannot endure a frank, open dialogue on the
contents of the Jewish sacred book, the Talmud, or on the extent to
which Judaism is infected with institutional racism and hatred for
non-Jews. Like any superstitious zealot, they are content to conform
to the official decree of the state religion of "Holocaust" piety.
Critical analysis and thinking independent of received
opinion--faculties cited as absolutely indispensable by liberals when
considering any other religion--are discarded when it comes to
Judaism. Here one is abjured only to bend the knee, tip the hat and be
on one's way.

This cowardly betrayal of our God-given powers of reason--also
advocated by conservatives--should anger any researcher or scholar
worth his or her salt and that anger ought to be translated into the
most rigorous and thorough, impartial examination of Judaism it is
within our power to render. Such an examination, to be valid, must
begin with the Jewish sources themselves.

Whenver the subject of hatred and racism in the Talmud is raised,
certain Jewish rabbis nearly always respond with a barrage of
name-calling, coupled with a statement that the Talmud is free of all
such negativity. This is the official position, promoted in the media
intended for consumption by Gentiles. But let us see what the Jews say
in publications intended for each other.

The Jewish Press is reputed to be the largest Jewish newspaper in
America. Politicians court it for endorsements and orthodox Jews
consult it for instruction. Rabbi Simcha Cohen writes an authoritative
teaching column in The Jewish Press entitled, "Halachic Questions."

In his column Rabbi Cohen stated, concerning the Talmud's view of
"heathens," that is, non-Jews, that they are "animals." Rabbi Cohen
writes that the Talmudic teaching that non-Jews are animals can be
found in the Talmud books Gemara Kiddushin 68a and Metzia 114b. (The
Jewish Press, Feb. 19, 1988, p. 10A).

Jewish men are admonished not to marry a non-Jewish women because such
women all have the status of zona that is, prostitutes. According to
Rabbi Samuel A. Turk, writing in The Jewish Press of June 22, 1990, p.
38, quoting the halachic authority, Gentiles are not allowed to marry
into Israel because Israel must have within it "no harlot;" and
"neither shall there be a sodomite." In other words, non-Jewish men
are all regarded as homosexuals and non-Jewish women are all regarded
as prostitutes.

Furthermore, according to Rabbi Simcha Cohen, if a Jewish woman
marries a Gentile man, she becomes a zona, that is to say, a
prostitute. Rabbi Cohen:

"...marriage to a Gentile can never be sanctified or condoned, such a
liason classifies the woman as a zona...common parlance interprets the
term zona to refer to a prostitute..."

This is qualified by Talmudic authorities in that a Jewish woman would
not be called a zona who conducted a prostitution service exclusively
with Jewish men: "Indeed, premarital sex of a Jewish woman to a Jewish
man does not automatically brand the woman a zona..." A Jewish woman
becomes a prostitute or zona in the eyes of the Talmud only when she
marries or otherwise has sexual relations with a non-Jew. (Jewish
Press, Feb. 19, 1988, p. 8C).

The Talmudic view of non-Jewish women as prostitutes is widespread
among Jews. The Yiddish word for a Gentile woman is shiksa, which
means whore, from the Hebrew root word, sheigetz ("abomination"). The
Yiddish word for Gentile girls is shikselke, meaning "little female
abomination." (Chaim Bermant, "Some Carefully and Carelessly Chosen
Words, Jewish Chronicle, May 17, 1991).

These unlovely racist-Jewish appellations have been transliterated
into English slang in American popular culture in the use of the word
bimbo ("stupid whore") as an insulting description of good-looking,
blonde White women. A classic example of the Jewish hatred of such
women was exhibited by Lisa Schwarzbaum in her essay entitled "Blonde
Ambition," which was published in the NY Daily News:

"The garden-variety bimbo of today is a woman who is inescapably
blonde, inevitably busty and invariably about as intellectual as a
Cheez-Doodle...She beams her 40-watt brilliance...She's called Jessica
or Donna or Marla, and she comes to our attention because she has been
spotted in a motel room with a televangelist...City women swear we
wouldn't want to trade our higher consciousness for their low wattage.
We bemoan their unfeminist feminine wiles." (NY Daily News, May 27,
1990).

Could it possibly be inferred from Miz Schwarzbaum's writing that she
is guilty of the "group libel" of Gentile women? Imagine the howls of
condemnation and the cries for imprisonment were a White Christian
woman to pen an article entitled, "Jewish Feminist Ambition."

The bimbo insult, like so many other racist Jewish epithets, has been
picked up by the heartland and the mainstream and resounds through
small town America as a self-hating put-down used by Gentile women
against other Gentile women. The racist nature of this insult isn't
even glimpsed, nor does any "anti-racist" campaigner trace its origin
in the depths of instiutionalized Jewish contempt for Gentile women.

With regard to the "Who is a Jew" debate, it is officially stated in
the Establishment media, that any Gentile, if sincerely converted to
Judaism under the auspices of properly constituted orthodox rabbinic
authority, becomes a Jew. However this is by no means the unanimous
view of the rabbis themselves or of the Talmud. In fact, the Talmud
decrees that "...a Gentile can obtain some rights when he is powerful
and especially when he poses a threat to Jews." (Israel Shahak,
Ha'aretz. April 5, 1990).

At present, the Israeil state is dependent upon the good will of the
Gentiles of the West for financial support, military aid and
cooperation in propagating Israeli versions of current events and
history. Therefore, at present, Gentiles are accepted as Jews if they
convert, have the proper sincerity and are examined and received by
the strict orthodox rabbis. To do otherwise would be to reveal that
Judaism is a religion of self-worship (the Jewish race is itself god),
based upon the notion of Jews being the Master Race.

For those who search the Jewish scriptures, an inner teaching on the
status of Gentile converts to Judaism is revealed, a teaching which
awaits enforcement at a later date, when Jews are all-powerful, but
which points to a mentality of clandestine contempt orthodox Jews have
toward converts to Judaism.

Hence Rabbi Helbo in the Talmud passage T.B. Yebamos 109b states,
"Proselytes are hurtful to Israel and a sore on the skin." (For
confirmation of this passage, see Rabbi Sammuel Turk, Jewish Press,
Feb. 19, 1988, p. 10). A further indication of the true status of the
Gentile convert to Judaism can be found in the fact that the marriage
of a Jewish priest to a Gentile convert is prohibited (Simcha Cohen,
Jewish Press, Feb. 19, 1988, p. 10a).

More ominous is the statement of the pre-eminent Jewish rabbi of
antiquity, Shimon Ben Yohai, to whom the Jewish holiday of Lag B'omer
is dedicated. Rabbi Yohai stated, "Even the best of the Gentiles
should all be killed." (Isidore Singer, "Gentiles,"Funk and Wagnalls
Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 617, 1907 edition; also cf. Talmud-Minor
Tractates, Soferim 15, Rule 10).

Assuming that the "best of the Gentiles," in Jewish eyes would be
those who seek to become Jews, one can suppose that Rabbi Yohai's
statement will at some future date warrant the elimination of those
Gentiles in the Israeli ranks who carry the label of convert. Though
the pre-eminent Jewish law interpreter of antiquity has commanded
their death, permission to delay or counteract Jewish law is given
where Gentiles are still in a position to create a danger for Jews.

In discussing the Talmudic prohibition of giving food cooked
specifically for Jews to either "Gentiles or dogs," an exception is
allowed: "...the Jews were permitted in some cases to serve Gentiles
food cooked only for Jews. For example, permission was given in a case
where a Gentile might feel insulted enough to cause a danger to Jews."
(Israel Shahak, Ha'aretz, April 5, 1990).

That contempt for converts is widespread, if seldom remarked upon in
the controlled, secular media. In the Ask-the-Jewish-Lawyer column of
the Canadian Jewish News, a Jewish mother whose son married a German
woman who converted to Judaism wrote the following:

"We never wanted her as our in-law. She cannot give us "naches" (the
feeling you get when your one-year-old starts hobbling for the first
time), being of a heritage that we do not respect as my husband is a
Holocaust survivor. We do not consider her conversion to Judaism
valid. I told my son I forbid this marital union. I would like to have
his name erased from our family name. How can we do this? We are
preparing a will. Will one dollar for him be enough...?"

Attorney John Syrtash replied as follows: "...technically you do not
have to leave him anything in your will as a matter of law. However,
as a precaution I would put a nominal $500 in the will, along with an
express statement in the will explaining why the amount is so low as
it is, drafted concisely and without reference to your ethnic
prejudices...If you are sufficiently paranoid you may even obtain a
letter from a qualified psychiatrist when revising your will to state
that at the time you signed it you were clear-headed and knew exactly
what you were doing." ("A Lawyer Replies," Canadian Jewish News, Nov.
23, 1989, p. 12).

The reference to "sufficient paranoia" is apposite as we wade further
into the mad-house of Jewish law and the Jewish mentality it has bred.

One of the big areas of concentration in yeshiva schools (Talmud
seminaries) is the lofty subject of the women's mentrual flow. This
august topic featured prominently in one Talmud class as reported by
the Los Angeles Times: "The Talmudic lesson last Monday was on
distinguishing menstrual blood stains on a woman's garment from blood
spots possibly caused by other sources." The Times states that it is
important for rabbis to be able to distinguish menstrual blood stains
on women's clothing from "...visible blood stains...caused by lice,
bed bugs or blood spattered in a butcher shop." (John Dart, "Jewish
Scholars Mark 7-Year Study Cycle, L.A. Times, April 28, 1990, p.F15).

The Jewess Evelyn Kaye states: "In the code of Jewish law...there are
85 pages of rules, regulations and interpretations covering every
minute aspect of the menstrual cycle...The rabbis drew up a series of
definitions for 'Regular Periods'...'Irregular periods,' which they
divide up into Lunar cycles, Same-Interval cycles and 30 Day Cycles."
(The Hole in the Sheet).

This fascination with morbid blood is evidenced in the Jewish infant
circumcision ritual or bris in the course of which blood from the
lacerated penis is sucked through a glass tube by a mohel (rabbi who
specializes in circumcisions) in an act known as metzitza. According
to the rule of the Shulchan Aruch (the codification of the Talmudic
Mishnah), any mohel who dispenses with the blood-sucking must be
"removed from his post." Using a surgical clamp to prevent bleeding
also renders a bris "null and void." According to the Talmud there
must be some bleeding resulting from the bris. "Using a clamp to
prevent bleeding defeats one of the purposes of the ritual and makes
it invalid." (Cf. "Doctor Challenges Female Mohel's Status," Canadian
Jewish News, Jan. 21, 1993, p. 31).

Israel Shahak talks about the "shock"that is "bound to occur" if
people actually "find out the truth...about...Judaism...what Judaism
was really like when Jews were governed by that Halacha" ("the correct
path," i.e as prescribed in the Talmud).

Shahak states: "As to the concept of 'saving souls,' (piku'ach nefesh)
the Talmudic literature makes it clear to anyone who reads it, even
cursorily, that this concept is inapplicable to Gentiles. In principle
it is forbidden for Jews, including Jewish doctors, to save the life
of a Gentile, for what we could call humanitarian reasons. Saving the
life of a Gentile and thereby violating the Sabbath is even more
strictly forbidden. However, in the case of 'saving the soul' of a
Jew, such violation of the Sabbath is not only mandatory it is counted
as a good deed...There have been endless Halachic debates, which still
continue today, on whether 'soul saving' should apply only to Jews or
whether Jewish fear of Gentiles and their enmity should result in a
dispensation to save Gentile lives...In Israel a few years ago, the
Haredi 'experts' for such matters ruled that a Jewish doctor, when he
is afraid that the authorities of any state may revoke his license if
he refuses to treat Gentiles...can obtain a dispensation, provided
that during the treatment he thinks about the dispensation rather than
about the treatment itself." (Israel Shahak, "The Status of the
Gentile in Jewish Religious Law and Israeli Politics," Ha'aretz, April
5, 1990).

Prof. Shahak illuminates a central underlying tenet of Judaism: that
it does not express its overwhelming hostility to the non-Jewish world
where it lacks the political and military might to do so, but once it
possesses that might, it shall move swiftly against the Gentiles:
"...according to Halacha a Gentile does not possess any self-evident
rights vis-a-vis a Jew. A Gentile can obtain some rights when he is
powerful and especially when he poses a threat to Jews. The more a
Gentile threatens Jewish lives, the more Halachic rights he will be
granted.

"It therefore becomes clear that...if the Arabs do not have chemical
weapons, if their armies become weaker, and if the Intifada
(Palestinian uprising) is crushed, Halacha will not only prohibit any
retreat from the territories, but it will also prescribe the beginning
of the expulsion of the Gentiles, especially of the Christians, along
with the destruction of their churches. If a miracle happens
and...Israeli influence in the U.S. increases a thousand-fold, the
Halacha will compel us to expel all Gentiles not only from all of
Palestine but also from 'all places which we shall conquer..." (Israel
Shahak, op. cit.).

Jewish scholar Shahak gives the Talmudic teaching on Christianity and
how it is to be treated when Jews are strong: "...the churches of the
Christians in Palestine...are places of idolatry. Conversely we are
obliged by our religion (Torah) to destroy all idolatry and idol
worshippers and to pursue it until we obliterate it from all of our
country and from all the places which we conquer." (Shahak, op. cit.).

The words of Israeli Talmud scholar Israel Shahak, first published in
the Israeli national newspaper Ha'aretz, will come as news to most
non-Jews.

Let us tread further down the path of Jewish hatred for non-Jews. Here
is the late Rabbi Meir Kahane advocating in 1990 the mass destruction
of the German people: "When it comes to the Amalek of our times,
Germany, there is an on-going war, a never-ending war, a war for
generations...There can never be forgiveness or contact or relations
or anything to do with them. They are beyond the pale and daily, the
Jew must pray for the ultimate destruction of a German people that
never received an iota of the punishment they deserved...If the
Almighty ever allows me to become Prime Minister of Israel...there
will be nothing but an Amalek whose memory we will blot out as much as
possible until the great day when the Almighty finishes the mitzvah of
vengeance." (Rabbi Meir Kahane, "Halachic Overview," The Jewish Press,
Oct. 12, 1990, p. 49).

In March of l986, the Israeli army's chief chaplain on the occupied
West Bank, Rabbi Shmuel Derlich, distributed a 1,000 word pastoral
letter to Jewish soldiers calling for the total extermination of
Amalek. "Derlich wrote that it is the duty of 'a king in Israel...to
eradicate Amalek without leaving any trace...one must show no pity for
any creature from the nation of Amalek--man, woman, child...There is
no doubt that in the last generation we met the Amalekite enemy...in
the form of the German nation,' he wrote." Jerusalem Post, May 17,
1986.

Harvard University's Jewish professor of law, Alan Dershowitz, who was
cited earlier lying about revisionist Bradley R. Smith, in his book,
Chutzpah, stated, "The rebuilding of postwar Germany into one of the
world's most affluent nations is a moral disgrace. A minimal
appropriate response to the collective responsibility of the German
people for the crimes of their leaders...should have been a generation
of poverty."

Janet DeLynn (a.k.a. DeLynnski): "...I am glad Israel has the atomic
bomb, and the continued existence of Israel is the only cause for
which I consider it justifiable to use nuclear weapons...maybe we
could have tried the A-bomb on Germany rather than Japan...What
practically speaking, can one do with a nation (Germany) in which
virtually everyone over the age of ten, twelve, fifteen...was either a
participant in or accessory to murder?" (Testimony: Contemporary
Writers Make the Holocaust Personal, p. 65, quoted in Instauration,
May, 1990, pp. 20-21).

"Rabbi Charles Rosenzweig of West Bloomfield, Michigan, stated that
'Germany's guilt is absolute' and that forgiveness 'is not possible."
Dov Shilansky, Speaker of the Israeli Knesset, said that 'Even in a
thousand years, the shame of Germany will not be erased." (Liberty,
July, 1990, p. 14).

"I had avoided Germany because I did not choose to try to keep a civil
tongue or civil face among those I felt would have stood by while my
children and I were murdered...And I felt I knew all I cared to know
then about German history and the German soul. On both, every Jew is a
specialist." (A.M. Rosenthal, Press-Enterprise, [Riverside, Calif.],
April 27, 1990. Mr. Rosenthal is the former managing editor of the
N.Y. Times).

"In history, Germany was not the only criminal nation, just the most
vile." (A.M. Rosenthal, "Our German Business," N.Y. Times, September
22, 1992, p.27).

"One of those rankling questions is why is it that Germany, which
visited upon the whole world, and especially upon the Jewish world--an
unprecedented hell of war, barbarism and assembly-line killing of
millions of Jews, should have turned out to be a prosperous, powerful
and even prestigious country. We wonder why in heaven's name, this
country of savage murderers should have risen from the ashes of defeat
to become a land of tranquility with a standard of living far above
those countries which sacrificed the flower of their youth to stop the
Germans from enslaving the entire world." (Rabbi David B. Hollander,
"The Torah," Jewish Press, December 8, 1989).

"Germans are an abomination to me. I'm glad Dresden was bombed for no
useful military purpose." (Mordecai Richler, Vancouver Sun, Sept. 13,
1966).

"The two greatest evils of this century...both came out of
Germany...Arrogant overstatement is another endearing German trait."
(Don Feder, Conservative Jewish columnist, Gazette Telegraph [Colorado
Springs, Colorado], April 26, 1989.

"Let Austria decide whether it is a civilized country or the dirty
anti-semitic dogs that they have so far been." (Edgar Bronfman,
President, World Jewish Congress, Globe and Mail, May 8, 1989.

The world will be saved, "...if the world were to acknowledge its
collective guilt against the Jewish people." (Moshe Holczler, "Open
Your Eyes, World," The Jewish Press, Nov. 23, 1990, p. 12).

"Hostility toward non-Jews has along history in the Jewish
world...It's no secret that Jews disparage non-Jews behind their
backs. Some Jews brag about tricking them in business, others shun
them socially. The Yiddish phrase goyishe kup (a non-Jewish head),
indicates someone stupid or foolish. In Jewish literature, the non-Jew
is often portrayed as someone who is untrustworthy, dangerous or
hateful." (Michael Lerner, Utne Reader, Jan./Feb. 1991).

Imagine that a former mental patient, who now heads the Texas Ku Klux
Klan, is driving through the Black ghetto in Houston with his
grandchildren and rocks are thrown at his car by Black demonstrators.
The Ku Kluxer immediately stops his car, hops out and indiscriminately
opens fire with an automatic pistol, missing the Blacks who threw the
rocks and killing a Black shopkeeper who had nothing to do with the
incident while also wounding one of his Black customers. The Klan
leader then walks through the Black ghetto firing his weapon, kicking
at debris and shouting "Nigger."

What would have been the reaction of the U.S. and international media
to such a case? What would be the Klansman's well-deserved sentence?
300 years in prison? 500 years? Death by lethal injection?

A case equivalent to this happened in the Israeli state.

Moshe Levinger, a Jew who spent "some of his youth" in a Swiss
psychiatric facility, is the head of the Gush Emunim, a Zionist
settler group which believes that Arabs "are dogs" and that
Palestinian land must be taken by force of arms.

On Sept. 30, 1988, Rabbi Levinger was driving through the Palestinian
village of Hebron when his car was hit by stones. "...according to
numerous witnesses, Levinger parked his car from harm's way and then
walked determinedly toward the demonstrators, firing his pistol
indiscriminately. Ibrahim Bali, an Arab textile salesman was buying
new shoes for his daughter when he heard the shooting. He was standing
outside a shop when a bullet tore through his shoulder. A bullet also
ripped into the chest of Khayed Salah, who was about to close the
metal shutters of his shoe store. The Israeli Army company commander
who witnessed the shooting said that after the rabbi fired his weapon,
he walked down the road screaming, 'You're dogs,' at Arab vendors,
kicking over vegetable crates and flower containers..." (Robert I.
Friedman, Zealots for Zion, pp. 23, 29, 37-38).

He was sentenced to serve five months in prison and was honored at a
celebration prior to beginning his sentence which was attended by
well-wishers including Israeli General Yitzhak Mordecai, military
commander of the West Bank as well as the President of Israel, Chaim
Herzog. A religious ruling on Rabbi Levinger's attack was prepared by
Rabbi Moshe Neriya and published in the national Israeli newspaper
Ha'aretz of May 13, 1989, in which the rabbi ruled that every Jew has
the duty "to shoot [Arabs] left and right without thinking and without
hesitating."

Rabbi Moshe Levinger was released from prison after serving two and
one-half months of his sentence. The sentence reflected the religious
opinion of Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, who has offered "justification for
the view that the spilling of non-Jewish blood was a lesser offense
than the spilling of Jewish blood. 'Any trial based on the assumption
that Jews and goyim are equal, is a total travesty of justice,' he
said. (N.Y. Times, June 6, 1989, p. 5).

Has the reader even heard of Rabbi Levinger much less what he did or
the ten weeks he spent in jail for the murder of a Palstinian
bystander?

In July of 1983, Levinger's son-in-law and other members of the
Zionist Makhteret (Underground), described as "the most violent
anti-Arab terrorist organization since the birth of the Jewish
state...burst into the courtyard of the Islamic College in Hebron
during a noon lunch break, tossing a grenade and spraying machine gun
fire. Three Palestinian students were killed and thirty-three injured.
'Whoever did this,' declared Rabbi Levinger, 'has sanctified God's
name in public."

In May of 1990, 21 year old Israeli Amri Popper walked to the Rishon
le Zion market where Palestinian day laborers awaited work. Popper
opened fire on them with an assault rifle, killing seven men and
wounding ten. Israeli motorists got out of their cars and danced the
hora among the carnage. As the Palestinians bled to death, one dancing
Jew asked, "What, only seven dead?"

The Israeli army subsequently shot to death seven more Palestinians on
the same day and wounded several hundred more.

"There is no doubt that the Rishon le Zion gunman acted within a
society in which the norm exists that Arab life is cheap...treating
Levinger like a hero have created this norm..." (L.A. Times, May 23,
1990, p. 4).

On October 8, 1990, the first day of Sukkoth, the Jewish feast of
booths, the Israeli army opened fire on a crowd of Palestinians at the
Temple Mount in Jerusalem, killing 17 and wounding 150. At first the
Sukkoth Day Massacre was presented by Israeli spokesman as the result
of a vicious Arab stoning ofJewish pilgrims at the Western or
"Wailing" wall. "In order to blunt criticism of the Temple Mount
shooting..the Shamir government launched an obstreperous
public-relations campaign against U.S. media's 'biased' coverage of
Israel. It's a time-honored strategy in Israel, where many government
officials have come to believe that a problem hasn't been invented
that a little hasbara, or propaganda can't fix....The Jewish
community's strong response seemed to intimidate the media, which,
with few exceptions, followed Israel's interpretation of events. After
the initial flurry of press coverage, the story seemed to die..."
(Friedman, op. cit., p. 132).

17 Palestinian civilians had been shot to death by the Israeli army
and police. The victims were blamed, even though no Jews were injured
by any mass "rock-throwing" as Israeli magistrate Ezra Kama would
admit in July, 1991. The official government view became the media's
view. "The story seemed to die." The hasbara was having its effect as
predicted.

What if 17 Jewish civilians had been shot to death by an Arab
government, would the mdia accept the official Arab version as their
own? After an initial flurry would the story have been left to die or
would it have been made into the Movie of the Week from the Jewish
victims' point of view?

As it turned out, to his credit, 60 Minutes' TV reporter Mike Wallace
investigated the case and produced a truthful national network program
on the atrocity the Jews committed. Wallace documented that the
Israeli massacre of the Palestinians was an unprovoked, brutal crime.

"60 Minutes was also inundated with complaints from mainstream
American Jewish organizations and powerful, pro-Israel supporters. At
a New York dinner party, 60 Minutes executive producer Don Hewitt got
into a shouting match with ABC television's Barbara Walters, the real
estate developer and publisher of U.S. News and World Report Mortimer
Zuckerman and Mort Janklow, a literary agent, over the Temple Mount
segment...A furious CBS chairman Laurence Tisch summoned Hewitt and
Wallace...Tisch is an influential figure in the New York United Jewish
Appeal-Federation ...Tisch felt the piece was unfair...(and) required
more background reporting." (Friedman, op. cit., p. 133).

Rehavam Ze'evi, member of the Israeli Knesset stated, "Every Jew is
worth a thousand Arabs." (Al-Fajr, Nov. 6, 1989, p. 15).

"...Prof. Dan Scheuftan of the Hebrew University told a Nov. 13 Jewish
Student Federation Lecture on the chances for Middle East peace, that
all Arabs are violent and all Arabs want to poison baby Jews."
(Canadian Jewish News, Nov. 28, 1991, p. 38).

"Commercial Hebrew children's literature published in Israel provides
a portrayal of the Arab character that is a reflection of Zionist
perceptions of Arabs in general, and Palestinians in particular. Such
a portrayal of Arabs has not been limited to Israeli Jews alone but
has also been transmitted to and accepted by, a large segment of world
Jewry and international public opinion, especially in the West. As a
colonial settler movement, Zionism realized the importance of
portraying the Arab character in a negative light and of depreciating
Arab rights in order to justify Zionist actions in Palestine...

"The characteristic image of Arabs in commercial Hebrew children's
literature is a grim one. The Arab appears as a criminal...Arabs are
also depicted as thieves, stealing because theft is part of their
nature, especially from Jews because of 'envy.' Arabs are also shown
as swindlers...Arabs are base...Arabs are cowards...Arabs are
idiots...Arabs prefer that non-Arabs tell them what to do. Arabs are
liars whose word cannot be trusted and whose promises should not be
taken seriously. Arabs are dirty in mind...

"There are several reasons for this negative portrayal of Arabs. First
is the need to eliminate any respect for Arabs among
Jews...Eradicating respect also dehumanizes, thereby rendering
acceptable whatever befalls the dehumanized party, including exile,
dispossession or even death." (F.E. Asmar, "Israeli Children Imbibe
Racism," Guardian Special Edition, Spring, 1987, p. 21).

"Forty percent of Israeli Jewish high school pupils hate all, or
almost all, Arabs, according to the first comprehensive survey
conducted since the outbreak ofthe intifada...

"The present survey--completed over a period of two years--was
conducted by Ofra Meizels, Reuven Gal and Eli Fishof of the Israeli
Center for Military Studies in Zichron Ya'acov. In a country-wide
poll, the researchers interviewed 5,400 pupils attending grades 10, 11
and 12 in state-secular and state-religious schools." ("40%% of Israeli
Youth Hate Most Arabs," Canadian Jewish News, August 17, 1989, p. 5).

The hatred of the Arabs does not raise the human rights hackles of the
liberal and conservative Gentile apologists for Zionism because this
hatred is supposedly a justifiable reaction on the part of Jews to
Arab terrorism.

By the same token, Jewish hatred for Christianity and Jesus Christ are
excused on the basis of what the Christians have done to the Jews,
making hatred of Christians permissible. One of the many confirmed
anti-Christian bigots among the Jews is the writer Hyam Maccoby. His
book falsifying the Gospels, Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish
Evil, is an excellent example of venomous hatred of Christians
presented under the guise of promoting the welfare of the Jews. It
seems that under this shibboleth, waved like the proverbial magic wand
before the eyes of Gentiles, the most vitriolic anti-Christian
prejudice is summoned up without protest from the target peoples. By
this clever Jewish technique, "fighting racism" is invoked in order to
spread racist hatred for Christians and Palestinians.

In Maccoby's book the existence of the Jewish Judas and his act of
betrayal, for which Christ said it would have been better had Judas
never been born, is denied. According to Maccoby, the whole Judas
episode was a Christian plot concocted out of thin air in order to
defame the Jews.

Paul Johnson, writing in the London Sunday Telegraph (Feb. 23, 1992)
states that Maccoby's book is not so much scholarly as an
anti-Christian polemic and that, "...the book betrays a certain
paranoid attitude to Christianity...the book is not an open-minded
inquiry into the reality of Judas. On the contrary it starts with a
conclusion and then proceeds to amass the evidence to justify it. This
leads him into all kinds of difficulties, notably in disposing of the
name 'Iscariot,' where he is at his least plausible. It also obliges
him to predicate that the Evangelists and the writer of Acts, were
constantly engaged in unscrupulous propagandist inventions for base
politico-ecclesiastical purposes. On other occasions however, when
their evidence happens to fit in with his theory, they are reliable
sources...Maccoby, in short, is too obsessed...to write an objective
account of Judas."

In the Jewish mentality, opposing the stereotype of Judas as a
cardboard "Jew devil," even to the extent of denying he existed, and
attributing the accounts of his treachery to "propagandist inventions"
by the Church, is a worthy and necessary endeavor on the part of
Jewish writers.

However, when Christians truthfully attempt to wade through the wild
tales and exaggerations which attend the so-called "genocide" of Jews
in World War Two, because they see in such exaggerations, the
unmistakeable outline of a cardboard "Christian devil" being mounted
by Zionist propaganda, such an endeavor raises a howl of protest from
Jews and dark intimations about the motives of those who would seek to
correct the record and defend Christianity from libel.

Thus the equation is submitted to the old Jewish insistence on special
privileges and status above mankind. They, the Master Race, have the
right to investigate historical stories, like the tale of Judas, which
create legends of Jewish deviltry. But for the mere goyim to do the
same, to dare to investigate Jewish tales which foment legends of
Christian deviltry--this becomes an unpardonable sin against the
majesty of Jewish omniscience, infallibility and suzerainty.

In a similar manner the Jews have created for themselves a license to
agitate for Jewish racial purity and apartheid for Palestinians, at a
time in the modern era when talk of race purity and racial separation
are grounds for imprisonment in Britian, France and Germany and
expulsion from the politically correct universities of America. It is
only to the Jewish Master Race that such racial concerns are licensed
and legitimated.

For example, mainstream Jewish groups regularly run advertisements in
national liberal newspapers such as the NY Times and in their own
religious Jewish publications calling for Jewish racial purity.

In the December, 1989 Jewish Chronicle a large ad appears, placed by
the "Jewish Seminar Movement" (Chofetz Chayim Torah). The text of the
ad asks, "An Urgent Call to World Jewry...Do you realize we are in
dire danger of losing millions of precious Jewish souls through
intermarriage?...That the children of intermarriage grow up with
complexes and confusion? If you or your friends are on the verge of
internarriage, we plead with you, do not allow a temporary infatuation
to ruin your life, the lives of your dear children and help to destroy
our cherished and beloved Jewish people."

Imagine if a White heritage group, distressed over the demographic
fact that only one in twenty-six of the world's people are White, were
to take out national ads arguing against Whites "inter-marrying" with
other races, thereby "helping to destroy our cherished and belowed
White race." The outrage, the weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth
would resound from the editorial pages of the Hoboken Cornstalk
Trombone to the halls of the United Nations and media sattelites
circling the globe in outer space. Leading the attack would be "Jewish
service and humanitarian groups," because Jews reserve to themselves
alone the right to racial purity and racial separation.

Jeffrey Kwintner, a Jew, writing in the Jewish Chronicle of Dec. 29,
1989 says: "...Jews are the only exception. They were destined to be
unique. The concept of racial purity within the Jewish nation is not a
myth...The only facts to determine Jewishness should be purely an
hereditary one regardles of Jewish observance. A Jew is someone from
Jewish stock. No one can make a gentile Jewish...We must retain our
own exclusivity in order to survive and not be infiltrated by
outsiders..."

When the Aryan Nations group established a headquaters in the Idaho
panhandle and announced that they intended it as a base for creating a
separate nation for Whites in the Pacific Northwest, they were
denounced universally in the Establishment media, schools and courts
as foul hatemongers and racists. Yet the option of racial separation
for Jews is perfectly acceptable to such liberal organs as the NY
Times. A headline in the NY Times of Dec. 10, 1990, p. 6, illustrates
this: "More Jews in Israel Agreeing With Palestinians That Separation
Is the Only Solution." The article quotes Minister of Defense Yitzhak
Rabin as saying, "We must now recognize the fact that coexistence with
the Palestinian population of the territories in one political
framework has no chance. The only chance is through the solution of
separation..."

No such solution or separation is permitted White Christians in
America however. Any talk of disparate peoples being unable to
"coexist" in one political framework in the U.S. is grounds for
prosecution by the U.S. Justice Department, which is exactly what the
Federal government under Ronald Reagan did in 1987 to Louis R. Beam,
Jr. Mr. Beam, a former Vietnam helicopter gunner, was placed on the
FBI's "Ten Most Wanted" list on charges of "sedition," solely based on
his writings and speeches calling for a separate White enclave in
America. (He was acquitted of the charge by a working class jury of
his peers in Ft. Smith, Arkansas).

The grandiose vision of the Jewish race with its special immunities,
privileges and rights was articulated by President Ronald Reagan in a
memorable passage from his 1988 speech to dedicate the cornerstone of
the U.S. taypayer-financed, U.S. Holocaust Museum, then under
construction in Washington, D.C. In his speech, which was actually
written by a Jew, John Podhoretz, son of the fanatical Zionist Norman
Podhoretz (cf. Washington Jewish Week, Oct. 13, 1988), President
Reagan made the following incredible statement, "And we must make sure
that when the tall towers of our greatest cities have crumbled to dust
in the turnings of time, the Jewish people will still be on this earth
to cast their blessings..."

In other words, while the decline of our American cities is
inevitable, the decline of the Jews is not. Those who have hastened
the decline of our Republic and who curse non-Jews in the texts of
their Talmudic books daily and routinely, will be around to pick up
the pieces long after all else is in ruins.

For the babysitter of Bonzo the Chimp and his constituency of "Reagan
Republicans" and "Reagan Democrats," this is a prophecy to be
celebrated and applauded.

The Jew Samuel Gringauz, writing in the January, 1950 issue of Jewish
Social Studies, referred to the personal, "eyewitness" testimony of
Jews concerning the events of World War Two, as "full of preposterous
verbosity, exaggeration, dramatic effects...unchecked rumors, bias..."

Historian Gerald Reitlinger, author of a standard reference work on
what is termed the "Holocaust," states in his book The Final Solution,
"...the Eastern European Jew is a natural rhetorician speaking in
flowery similes...sometimes the imagery transcends credibility."

Lying as an Institution

Lying to Gentiles is institutionalized within the Jewish religion in
the Kol Nidre rite, when all oaths that were broken in the preceding
year, are rendered null and void.

Let us examine a few of the testimonies of the Jews who claim to have
lived through World War Two and who are labeled by the instrument of
Orwellian Newspeak as "Survivors of The Holocaust."

In an "Op Ed" piece in the Los Angeles Times, April 30, 1981, part II,
p. 11 a Jewess named Rachel Patron writes an essay devoted entirely to
the theme of the most horrifying scene she observed during the war:
bars of soap made from "the fat of dead Jews." The article is
accompanied by a drawing of a little girl who has scooped nearly a
dozen bars of such soap in her apron. Patron writes:

"Mama, Mama, look what I found!' I cried as I ran across the tracks,
holding on to the bottom of my skirt, which I'd filled with bars of
soap...My mother and I stood in front of the open door, she turning
the bar of soap over and over in her hand, while both of mine clutched
the skirt holding my treasure. Suddenly mother's face turned ashen and
her eyes opened wide with fear, as if locked on the sight of a
terrible monster coming to devour her. She said nothing but her fear
communicated itself to me and I began screaming, 'Mama, Mama, what
happened? What's wrong?'

"She still said nothing. I thought she couldn't hear me......I started
to tremble and then I screamed as loudly as I could and stomped my
feet hysterically because I was terribly frightened and I didn't know
why. So she had to tell me; not knowing would do me even more harm.

"Grasping me by the shoulders, she said, 'R.J.F. means Rein Judisch
Fett!' She said it in German, but I understood; it sounds the same in
Yiddish: Pure Jewish Fat.

"I let go of the bottom of my dress and all the soap came crashing to
the floor, many of the bars chipping and losing their smooth surface.
I bent down and started throwing them out of the train, one by one,
looking down to see them crushed between the sharp wheels and the
steel rails. And all the time tears were rolling out of my eyes..."

This is a certainly a very heart-rending story, a bit sensational and
sentimental perhaps, but one of the thousands of tales of German
perfidy retailed in the mass media including such august Establishment
organs as the L.A. Times. Each story serves to illustrate that
"terrible monster" the Germans and the civilization from which they
came. Certainly L.A. Times readers thought that the story had been
thoroughly checked by the editors before it was published so
prominently and in so great a paper as the Times. While Jews object to
the portrayal of Judas as a Jewish devil, no one has the right to
object to this stirring and sad portrayal of the work of the German
devil.

There is only one problem with the many "Jewish survivor" stories
about bars of soap from Jewish fat: Jewish historians themselves admit
that this was Allied atrocity propaganda and that it never happened.

In World War One the same idiotic story was told about the Germans by
the Allies only in that case the claim was made that Germans made the
soap from the bodies of British soldiers.

One cannot lay culpability for such war-time yarns at the door of the
Jew alone for virtually every war in history has produced wild
exaggerations about enemy forces which kings, generals and politicians
have sought to exploit in order to excite their populations to greater
sacrifices and martial frenzy.

During the French revolution Robespierre was accused of eating the
roasted flesh of priests and of creating a tannery for human skin for
making shoes for the sansculottes. (Le Blond de Neuveglise [probably a
pseudonym of the Abbe Proyart], La vie et les crimes de Maximilien
Robespierre, p. 279).

Robespierre in turn manufactured atrocity propaganda against
LaFayette: "In Robespierre's private war against LaFayette, he ofen
used wild exaggeration. He inflated the Champ de Mars casualties to
1,500 and repeated atrocity stories of children in Brabant being
slaughtered in their mother's wombs by LaFayette's soldiers and
carried on the ends of bayonets." (David P. Jordan, The Revolutionary
Career of Maximillien Robespierre, p. 89).

What makes the Second World War different is that it is the first war
in which, after it was concluded, the atrocity propaganda was not
discredited, but was in fact escalated. Hence in 1981 the prestigious
L.A. Times devoted a large part of its editorial page to a lunatic bar
of soap hoax cooked up by the Allies 35 years before. The "bars of
soap from Jewish fat" tale continues to make the rounds of films,
books, classrooms and newspapers, the better to permanently stigmatize
the German people and the Christian civilization of Europe as
monstrous evil.

"Professor Yehuda Bauer, head of the Hebrew Univserity's Holocaust
history department and regarded as one of the foremost researchers of
the Holocsaust, has denied the frequently quoted charge that the Nazis
used the bodies of Jewish death camp victims to make soap... 'We do
not have to go on believing untrue stories,' Bauer said.

"Raul Hilberg, professor of political science at the University of
Vermont and pre-eminent historian of the Holocaust, agrees that the
soap rumor, although widespread was probably unfounded.

"There were all kinds of rumors,' he said, noting that a NY Times
article during the war suggested that Jews were given lethal
injections before deportation...Other rumors speculated that Jews were
killed in the Belzec camp by electrocution in water... 'All these
rumors are untrue, based on nothing at all,' Hilberg said. 'No
evidence has turned up' to suggest that the Nazis used human fat to
make soap." (Hugh Orgel, Jewish Telegraph Agency, Northern California
Jewish Bulletin, April 27, 1990).

Whatever Hilberg and Bauer may say about the rumor-mongering and
atrocity tales, the mass media continues to report them as totally
truthful, straight news. No matter how preposterous or idiotic, no
skepticism is shown, no probing questions asked. We are dealing with a
religion here, the most sacred in the world!

The BBC made a Timewatch documentary about a group of Polish Jews who
are alleged to have "survived the Holocaust by living like and with,
the rats in the sewers of Lvov for 14 months." There is even a book,
In the Sewers of Lvov, dedicated to Leopold Socha, a sewer worker.
(Cf. "Subterranean Memories, Jewish Chronicle, Oct. 26, 1990).

Then there is the Zeiger family of seven, who for "two terrifying
years" beginning in 1942, lived in a "4-foot-deep hole" under Antosh
Suchinsky's barn, "afraid to light even a candle.... The quarters were
so cramped the adults could not even stand. 'I cannot tell you how
horrible the conditions were. There was no air, no food, no light."
(Gazette Telegraph, May 28, 1988).

Vera Kriegel recalls the day in Auschwitz that she was taken into a
room where she "saw a wall full of human eyes pinned to the wall like
a collection of butterflies." (Toronto Star, Feb. 5, 1985).

A Jew named Morris Hubert claims to have been sent to Buchenwald. He
says: "In the camp there was a cage with a bear and an eagle. Every
day they would throw a Jew in there. The bear would tear him apart and
the eagle would pick his bones." (Ari L. Goldman, "Time 'Too Painful'
to Remember," NY Times, Nov. 10, 1988).

Or how about Berta Yozawitz of Miami, Florida. During the "Holocaust,"
Berta "was moved to Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. One day, she
stole some turnips. She was caught and forced to lick the kitchen
floor clean with her tongue." (Palm Beach Post, April ll, 1988, p. 1).

Rabbi Dr. Moshe Weiss informs us: "...Nazis transported from the
Auschwitz camp to Germany seven trainloads of women's hair from which
the Germans produced soft mattresses forthe German population. There
were...10 trainloads of gold--especially from dental work.." (The
Jewish Press, April 5, 1991).

A French magazine, National Hebdo (May 31, 1990) details how the
sacred Auschwitz death toll has fallen dramatically over the years:
from 8 million (French War Crimes Research Office), to 5 million (Le
Monde, April 20, 1978) to 4 million (the figure advertised at
Auschwitz-Birkenau up until 1990) to 3 million (the "confessions" of
Rudolf Hoss) to 1. 6 million (Prof. Yehuda Bauer); to 1.25 million
(Prof. Raul Hilberg) to 850,000 (Gerald Reitlinger, The Final
Solution), to 75,000 (Auschwitz archives in posession of the
Russians).

This concludes chapter one in volume one of THE JEWISH MENTALITY by
Michael A. Hoffman II

Copyright ©1996 by Michael A. Hoffman II. All Rights Reserved.

Published electronically by The Campaign for Radical Truth in History.
This copyrighted material may not be reproduced in any format without
permission in writing.

http://www.hoffman-info.com